I would have vetoed and not thought twice about it. I am not one for this caveat emptor, as long as some BS spin can be made to justify it, it should be allowed. A first rounder was being dealt and the closest thing to a first rounder being sent back was Reyes, a 3rd or 4th rounder.

Not vetoable. Maybe he thinks Huff is going to put up similar numbers to 2003 (.311, 34 hr, 107 rbi). You have to let people manage their teams how they see fit and follow their hunches. Someone may have vastly different projections for this season than you have, and they should be allowed to act on them.

TheYanks04 wrote:I would have vetoed and not thought twice about it. I am not one for this caveat emptor, as long as some BS spin can be made to justify it, it should be allowed. A first rounder was being dealt and the closest thing to a first rounder being sent back was Reyes, a 3rd or 4th rounder.

bingo. i am a bit more willing to veto things, but don't think this is really a defensible trade. if people want, we can have another ad nauseum argument on the morality of vetoing absent a concurrent email to the league, "psstttt... we're doing this trade because we agreed that player A has no chance in this league and player B agreed to buy pizza for the rest of the week as long as player A does the deal" but any defense of the trade on its merits or balanced current market value is going to be really, really, really reaching.

regardless of a person's individual speculations/fantasies on how a particular player may perform, there is still relatively established market values that dictate that they could get the player they insanely covet and more, as well.

tell the player who is trying to fire-sale pujols to walk out onto a frozen lake, bore himself a hole, and then jump in. maybe that will shock him into some sense.